MikeAqua: I'd like to kick out the chaff and go back to a 10 team contest (4 of which are NZ teams).

For the chop: Sun wolves, Jaguars, Blues (yes BLUES), Force, Kings.

If I was going to start dropping teams it would just be Jaguars, Kings and Sun Wolves, and go back to Super 15 with five teams in each SANZAR country.

Sure, Blues haven't done much lately, but they have three Super Rugby titles and even though they have been bottom of the NZ conference for the last three seasons, often bottom in NZ is good enough for third in the SA or AU conferences - there were seven sides worse than them this year.

MikeAqua: I'd like to kick out the chaff and go back to a 10 team contest (4 of which are NZ teams).

For the chop: Sun wolves, Jaguars, Blues (yes BLUES), Force, Kings.

If I was going to start dropping teams it would just be Jaguars, Kings and Sun Wolves, and go back to Super 15 with five teams in each SANZAR country.

Sure, Blues haven't done much lately, but they have three Super Rugby titles and even though they have been bottom of the NZ conference for the last three seasons, often bottom in NZ is good enough for third in the SA or AU conferences - there were seven sides worse than them this year.

If the comp was cut back then NZ would have to sacrifice one team. The blues have the worst form and the fewest paying fans.

MikeAqua: I'd like to kick out the chaff and go back to a 10 team contest (4 of which are NZ teams).

For the chop: Sun wolves, Jaguars, Blues (yes BLUES), Force, Kings.

If I was going to start dropping teams it would just be Jaguars, Kings and Sun Wolves, and go back to Super 15 with five teams in each SANZAR country.

Sure, Blues haven't done much lately, but they have three Super Rugby titles and even though they have been bottom of the NZ conference for the last three seasons, often bottom in NZ is good enough for third in the SA or AU conferences - there were seven sides worse than them this year.

If the comp was cut back then NZ would have to sacrifice one team. The blues have the worst form and the fewest paying fans.

Currently. A few years ago it was the Chiefs who the public thought we should get rid of, then the Highlanders who were truly awful (and only some worse SA teams stopped us taking the wooden spoon more times.) It's quite cyclicLet's be honest - we won't be going backwards, it's all about expansion. More countries.

I think a 2 tier comp could work, with promotion / relegation. Leads to more interest in some of lower placed teams later in the season. It also allows for development pathways for some of the other nations. (another Japanese team, US, Pacific Islands) The logistics of it would be a problem, as they are all quite disparate areas / timezones.

MikeAqua: I'd like to kick out the chaff and go back to a 10 team contest (4 of which are NZ teams).

For the chop: Sun wolves, Jaguars, Blues (yes BLUES), Force, Kings.

If I was going to start dropping teams it would just be Jaguars, Kings and Sun Wolves, and go back to Super 15 with five teams in each SANZAR country.

Sure, Blues haven't done much lately, but they have three Super Rugby titles and even though they have been bottom of the NZ conference for the last three seasons, often bottom in NZ is good enough for third in the SA or AU conferences - there were seven sides worse than them this year.

If the comp was cut back then NZ would have to sacrifice one team. The blues have the worst form and the fewest paying fans.

Currently. A few years ago it was the Chiefs who the public thought we should get rid of, then the Highlanders who were truly awful (and only some worse SA teams stopped us taking the wooden spoon more times.) It's quite cyclicLet's be honest - we won't be going backwards, it's all about expansion. More countries.

I think a 2 tier comp could work, with promotion / relegation. Leads to more interest in some of lower placed teams later in the season. It also allows for development pathways for some of the other nations. (another Japanese team, US, Pacific Islands) The logistics of it would be a problem, as they are all quite disparate areas / timezones.

That's quite an interesting idea! Is the relegation purely points based, or position on the table based? Is the position on the table based on the same system it is now where there MUST be 2 SA and 1 AUS and 2 NZ teams in the finals?

That's quite an interesting idea! Is the relegation purely points based, or position on the table based? Is the position on the table based on the same system it is now where there MUST be 2 SA and 1 AUS and 2 NZ teams in the finals?

I haven't thought it through, but the Aviva Premiership in England has this in place, and they use straight points, but they also don't have a conference system. You could any number of conferences, and one promotion / relegation from each conference from the lower tier.

I think this could go into a proper conference system were you play cross conference during the season, but semi finals etc are doin within conference, then winners go to a grand final.

Not sure how the finals would work in the tier2 - how many do you want to relegate / promote. If one, do the losing teams from the tier 1 conferences play each other to see who is relegated?

That's quite an interesting idea! Is the relegation purely points based, or position on the table based? Is the position on the table based on the same system it is now where there MUST be 2 SA and 1 AUS and 2 NZ teams in the finals?

I thought there only had to be 1 NZ team (guaranteed conference winner into finals - only 1 NZ conference)?

Great win by the Canes. Two pieces of Barrett magic, one piece of brain dead foul play by Cane and it's all over. Not to mention the Chiefs butchering at least a dozen scoring opportunities in the opposition 22.Now. If the Highlanders can just best the Lions....... De ja vu.

Dingbatt: Great win by the Canes. Two pieces of Barrett magic, one piece of brain dead foul play by Cane and it's all over. Not to mention the Chiefs butchering at least a dozen scoring opportunities in the opposition 22.Now. If the Highlanders can just best the Lions....... De ja vu.

Chiefs have impressed me this year by playing more positive Rugby than they have previously, but just the last 2-3 games, the old negative play has started to creep back in. Agreed it was brain dead by Cane to do that, can't understand playing like that. It's not the first thing he has done either, there were a few things during the tests against Wales that concerned me at the time, that I can't quite recall.

Barrett really should be our starting 10, though it's hard to argue his bench impact and utility value over Cruden. I wonder if Barrett starts, if Cruden is even selected? Cruden would be right to be unhappy to not play though, he is our second best 10 right now and has a history with the AB's.

Dingbatt: Great win by the Canes. Two pieces of Barrett magic, one piece of brain dead foul play by Cane and it's all over. Not to mention the Chiefs butchering at least a dozen scoring opportunities in the opposition 22.Now. If the Highlanders can just best the Lions....... De ja vu.

Chiefs have impressed me this year by playing more positive Rugby than they have previously, but just the last 2-3 games, the old negative play has started to creep back in . Agreed it was brain dead by Cane to do that, can't understand playing like that. It's not the first thing he has done either, there were a few things during the tests against Wales that concerned me at the time, that I can't quite recall.

Barrett really should be our starting 10, though it's hard to argue his bench impact and utility value over Cruden. I wonder if Barrett starts, if Cruden is even selected? Cruden would be right to be unhappy to not play though, he is our second best 10 right now and has a history with the AB's.

Sorry can't let this one slide. Admittedly they were outclassed by the Highlanders in Dunedin, but to fly half way round the world and put 60 points on a home ground opponent, is not even slightly negative. If anything it smacked of festival rugby, where defence is sacrificed to just winning by scoring heaps of points. To see a perfect example of negative play, roll the tape back to where the Chiefs were camped in the Hurricanes 22 (score 5-3) and the TV flashed up the previous 5 penalties (all against the 'Canes if you need reminding). And once Nadolo was injured, your beloved Crusaders (ranked fourth of the NZ teams) were not averse to some negative play themselves.However, I see the Highlanders faltered overnight, I haven't watched the game yet, but feel sad is not an all NZ final. The plus side is, all of NZ (except possibly small pockets of the North Shore) will be supporting the Hurricanes next Saturday. The 'Canes can now lie and wait for the Lions to travel half way round the world for the final. How the Lions must be ruing sending their B side to Argentina. I have heard both the Chiefs and Highlanders say the travel is no excuse, but it must be a factor. All the more reason to have an East/West conference system in my book.

Not an excuse (ie "we are not going to whinge") but definitely a factor. In a way, if the Landers won, or the Chiefs won, they are going to get smashed next weekend. So for the sake of rugby, the "right" teams are playing next weekend.

Not an excuse (ie "we are not going to whinge") but definitely a factor. In a way, if the Landers won, or the Chiefs won, they are going to get smashed next weekend. So for the sake of rugby, the "right" teams are playing next weekend.

Yes. It will be played at sea level by the two most deserving teams from great rugby nations. And regardless of the result a new champion will be crowned.